To even speak of "the American people" is fraught with hazards. But right now 500,000 have voted today on MSNBC, 88% wanting impeachment. You think people who want impeachment want to stay in Iraq?

Of course, those internet polls are so IQ-biased, best to disregard them. Better to sample the television, propaganda-imbibing Mass Man, hmm?

=================

The Iraq invasion was not so stupid, its management was.

Iran was there to stir up troubles.
There was no counterintelligence to stem the Iranian interference.
The Iranian junta must go.

The late Iraqi dictator was a mass murderer, bordering on genocide.

=================

He had some money and lots of ambitions to ruin lots of people whose wealth he envied.

=============================

We need to instill a solid integrity in the leaders and citizens of all countries to prevent genocides and property thefts…

The best solution is a secular democracy – rule of a secular logic.

All corrupt religious leaders must be exposed, deposed, exiled to a barren island in the Pacifics — Far far far . Falwell must be exiled posthum…

Phil, please sharpen your messages, and do some positive contribution for the benefit of the masses, of all people.

What else is the mission of this blog?

Love The People!

So I wasn't surprised that we went to war with Iraq, or that Bush was elected second term. I agree with Phil, it is a conservative country.

Much of the anti-war libs were against the war right from the start (some truly anti-war, other just anti-Bush), and since they chose sides already, they were looking at propaganda with reservation. Where were they when Clinton bombed Iraq to a pulp in 1998? Where were they when Clinton bombed Serbia to a pulp? Were these people all of a sudden brainwashed by the media in those instances or were they just not anti-Clinton? Why are so many of the anti-war crowd demanding for an invasion of Sudan? Are they letting the Islamophobic reporting of the situation stirring up their own islamophobia? Shouldn't they be cutting through the BS of the press and see the truth? Or have they become just as dumb as middle america? So your anti-whatever view makes you view the facts certain way, just like the pro-war people saw fact in other ways.

The only people that cut through the fat were the ones who knew the facts outright. They knew which piece of info put out there were mis-speaks, twisting of facts or outright lies. And those people, like Scott Ritter, putting all those information together, came out against the war.

PW, this is pretty naive:

" The lefty critics of the press and politicians then say, Well the people don't have time to look into these things, or they are easily deceived. So they apply a different standard, of intelligence and political acumen to "the people" than they do to themselves. Elitism."

Is advertising "elitist" because it maintains that it can sell particular brands and products to the public? Are companies "elitist" when they buy into that marketing paradigm, and buy advertising?

You also wrote: "When the truth is that they actually know very few of these people to whom they ascribe such innocence and simplicity and inherent good nature. There is a class divide; the lib-left is by and large privileged (as I am). The "people" are less affluent. When the lib-left blames the media, they are saying that the people are stupid and can be manipulated in a way that they themselves cannot be."

Jacques Ellul, in 'Propaganda,' argued that it is intellectuals who are most dependent on propaganda. Possibly that was more true in semi-agrarian France of 1940. But again, it is hardly a matter of who is "stupid" or "smart," but who are inclined to call "bullshit" when stories of yellowcake and aluminum tubes emerge (or babies thrown from incubators in Kuwait, or threatened American med students in Grenada, and on and on). A lot of non-left/lib people I know saw the administration's arguments as horseshit; they aren't rich and they wouldn't know Mother Jones from Mamma Cass, but they're skeptical as all git — call them bull-headed Americans.

It's less a "class" issue, Phil, than a fear issue. People are afraid to speak out in the face of a nascent authoritarianism; the pnealties are high for both left/libs and troglodyte, dirt-under-the-fingernail rightnik rads. Throngs of people marched, the administration ignored them, their war plans already set in place, or 'fixed,' as some said at the time. A few pundits and journos spoke out, only to be smeared as traitors by the Foxistas and their helots.

And now the mighty Dem opposition has bent over like meek lambs, as they knew they must all along. 14 huge bases being built in Iraq, an embassy of 104 acres! We're NEVER leaving Iraq, short of impeachment, and that's OFF THE TABLE, thanks to the loyal (and we do mean loyal) opposition.
What a puppet-charade it all is.

But, Phil, you pretend otherwise when you write stuff like this:

"I'm prepared to agree that "the people" are not as well-educated or intelligent as us elites. But what if the people weren't manipulated? What if, in this great democracy, the people were angered by the attacks of 9/11 and chose to respond militarily, in a fit of nationalistic-topdog chauvinism, and flatten a third world country?"

Wasn't that the Ledeen argument, that every once in a while we need to pick up some small country and slam them against the wall? But think carefully about what you wrote. How would "the people who were angered" go about mobilizing and deciding which country to attack, and then decide on Iraq, and then marshall the political will to commit the armed forces? Just how does that occur, where the dogs wags such a bellicose tail?

When you answer that, you'll understand. The truth is, policy is disconnected from politics, not the other way around, particularly regarding foreign policy.

BTW, banning Paul from future debates would be like banning George Washington himself. They might as well stand on stage and burn the U.S. constitution. Guliani could light the faggots, perhaps dressed in something by Dior.

At the same time, I truly feel that there are thoughtful and intelligent Americans who are afraid to speak their minds publicly for fear of a backlash by neocons or others who won't tolerate different ideas. As a result of this chilling effect, which originated with "poltical correctness" from the left and has now been entrenched in Bush's party, it can be detrimental to one's livelihood if he truly speaks his mind. How ironic that the purported protector's of the weak are in reality today’s bullies.

As a result, maybe we’re wrong to blame “the people” for failing to make a public outcry against the war. I’ve heard occasional interviews with dissenters on NPR– and their interviews are cut short or they’re ideas are attacked. Ted Turner was brought to his knees for his comments in 2002—and he’s a billionaire. So maybe we shouldn’t expect “the People” to stick their necks out. The price of free speech suddenly seems high especially when we’re saving up for a new flat screen tv. The fact is that we Americans are fat, content….and indifferent. After all, ignorance is bliss.

Personally, I don't think americans SHOULD have to be examining what their leaders are doing or what their secret motives may or may not be. the solution as I see it is to take power from the goverment, especially the military. our budget is 2.9 trillion dollars. we have a republican president from Texas. a military adventure is obviously going to be in the works. So I say destroy the federal government, yes even the "good" stuff. It's the only way. otherwise the coroners report is going to say " death by Beltway"

Funny story about Doug Feith from Steve Clemons's blog–

"Patrick Lang told a hilarious story the other night, for example, about a job interview he had with Douglas Feith, a key architect of the invasion of Iraq.
It was at the beginning of the first Bush term. Lang had been in charge of the Middle East, South Asia and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s. Later he ran the Pentagon's worldwide spying operations."

…

"He says, 'Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?'

"And I said, 'Yeah, that's really true.'

"That's too bad," Feith said."

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002147.php

Feeling a little swollen-headed nowadays? There is nothing elite about you, a 2nd rate journalist at best…your people only recently crawled out of your cold, bleak, gray, and miserable Eastern European pit where all you people did all day was study racist anti-Gentile tracts like the Talmud and economically exploit Eastern Europeans. This is why you read and write well. But look around…'journalism' is dead; everyone and their mother is a journalist now.